Gregoire signs law expanding domestic partner benefits

[davidinalameda]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004278712_webdomestic12.html

Domestic partners will be granted more than 170 of the benefits and responsibilities given to married couples under a measure signed into law today by Gov. Christine Gregoire.

The measure adds domestic partners to sections of laws where previously only spouses were mentioned, including areas referring to probate and trusts, community property and homestead exemptions, and guardianship and powers of attorney.

"This bill is about protecting and helping Washington families," Gregoire said before signing the bill. "It simply gives these families the same rights as everybody else. It's the right thing to do."

The law takes effect on June 12.

[Tyler Durden]

1. Any particular reason why they don't get ALL of the rights?

I mean, the Constitution DOES say Equal Treatment Under The Law, does it not?

[MuseRider]

2. You beat me to it.

While I understand but often rail against pragmatism and incremental improvement, I fail to feel the urge to stand up and holler BRAVA about this.

Even if every right was given under Domestic Partnership or Civil Unions it would still be unequal. If it looks and act like marriage then you have to freaking call it that or it still is unequal.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Same sex couples cannot reproduce; therefore, we are not entitled to any marriage rights

At least, that is what the Washington Supreme Court ruled in July, 2006 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersen_v._King_County">Andersen v. King County.) Efforts to put that ruling into statutory form and make it binding on different-sex couples as well (see: Initiative 957) made news worldwide but, alas, did not get enough signatures to make the ballot.

Added link to the Andersen Wikipedia entry.

[lightningandsnow]

7. ok...WTF?

Infertile people can't reproduce. Therefore, should they not be able to get married as well?

The amount of stupid in this is unbelievable.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. That was the essence of the court ruling

Their "reasoning" went something like this:

1) There exists a legitimate state interest in encouraging couples to have children and raise them together.

2) The Legislature is empowered to take what steps it deems are necessary to further this interest.

3) Civil marriage is the mechanism by which this interest in maintained.

4) Therefore it is constitutional for the Legislature to restrict civil marriage to only those couples who are capable of having and raising children together.

The lead ruling (while five judges ruled to uphold the state DOMA, only three signed this ruling; two others signed a different ruling that said, basically, "Gay people should not be allowed to get married because that would be icky.") further stated that while marriage does support children who enter the family by way of adoption, previous relationships and artificial conception, so what? Such methods of adding children to a relationship are not what marriage is all about.

Our point with I-957 was to underline the idiocy of this ruling. If, as the Court said, marriage was solely for the purpose of having children together, and if the Legislature was empowered to enforce such a limitation, then the People by means of the initiative had exactly the same power.

[mondo joe]

8. Two reasons; the court denied us, and the legislature won't pass it. That said, I'm very

pleased to see this move forward.

It's especially interesting because the WA legislature stonewalled this for SO many years that to have 2 positive steps forward in 2 years is a very good sign.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. "More than 170 of the benefits and responsibilities given to married couples"

Out of the almost 1000 given by statute and judicial precedent in Washington; about 3%. And don't get me started on more than 800 given under federal law and precedent.

[davidinalameda]

5. there are people in this country with NO rights

I'm not thrilled that I don't have all the rights that married straights have but I'm glad that I do have some

I'm certainly not going to reject what others have fought hard for

it reminds me that we all have a lot of work to do but I'm glad that others have been successful in their past battles

[Zuiderelle]

12. Who are the people in this country with no rights?

Do you mean non-American citizens? Are you really so happy to have some rights but not all, not all of the rights of all other American citizens? I'm not. Incremental rights do nothing for me. I'll be dead before we have the rights that matter when I die.

[mondo joe]

13. You didn't ask me, but:

I'm glad to have my state providing some rights, though we're not where we need to be.

There are two ways we can get where we're going: one large step, or lots of little steps.

One large step is certainly preferable, but it's not happening in WA state. We tried it and it failed.

There are real living same sex couples who every day experience a loss because of the inequity in law. There's no reason to deny ourselves some protections just because we don't have all of them.

When your partner is in the hospital dying, not having access because you were holding out for marriage rather than getting the DP benefit would be cold comfort.

[Zuiderelle]

14. I'm not saying that this isn't a good step. I was answering his being "happy" with what we have.

I'm far from happy, but I recognize this as a good step towards equality. But, I've seen how slowly these advances creep, and I've calculated the time it would take, based on the time already gone by, for me to have the rights I need to protect my family on my death, and I'm going to be dead before we have that. So, no, I'm not happy about it.

Funny, when I read the OP, I thought, "Oh good. This is great news." Then I read how someone is happy with what few rights we have, and it brought me right back to reality. No, I'm not happy.

[mondo joe]

15. Understood. When I think of it, I feel happy to have state reps fighting for equality,

knowing they're up against so many shitheads, but they're doing it anyway.

[davidinalameda]

17. you need to go back and re-read my post

I said that I'm not thrilled that I don't have the same rights but I refuse to say that our GLBT ancestors have not been successful in what they have been able to accomplish

every step forward is a step in the right direction, no matter how small that step may be

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Non-citizens can still get married

We aren't talking about the right to vote here. With regards to marriage, illegal immigrants have far more rights that I.

[Zuiderelle]

22. Exactly.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. Don't ask be to be thrilled at a few crumbs

I'm tired of being hungry all the time, and I'm tired of being told that I don't deserve even the scraps the dogs don't want.

[moose65]

6. I think that's funny

That they say "more than 170." If the number is that small, then surely someone can count all those rights up and give us an exact number, like "175 rights" or "177 rights." Why do they always phrase it that way? Is there some ambiguity in the rights that might lead one to count differently? I know I'm being silly, but the whole thing strikes me as silly, anyway. No one really enumerates their rights, do they? Does anyone actually say "I'm guaranteed 3,547 rights by the Constitution"??

[mondo joe]

10. It's usually becase of rounding.

I often report on numbers. "Over 1 million" just sounds better and is more simple to convey than "1,004,632".

Also sometimes there's a problem in reconciling numbers, or some are debatable. So rather than saying "20,021 or 20,026 - we're still clarifying or debating" it's more effective to say "more than 20,000".

[moose65]

21. hmmmm....

More than one person agrees with you! :hi:

[mondo joe]

9. I signed up for the WA domestic partner registry yesterday, based on this. A number of

other same couples I know are doing the same thing.

My partner and I hadn't done it earlier for a few reasons, but it now feels like a political statement in support of this direction.

[davidinalameda]

23. good for you!

[mondo joe]

24. Thanks. It was an odd thing. We've been together for 18 years, have kids, have rings,

have joint-everything, and have already done the wills and durable power of attorney crap.

As much as I value these rights, filling out a form and mailing it to Olympia seemed so unceremonious that I wasn't making any fuss over it at the time. I went to my partner's office so his coworker could notarize the form, and everyone at his work was congratulating us and then took us out for champagne.

It was very odd - it was just a work day to me, and though I DEARLY appreciate how sweet everyone was I just wanted to say "This isn't marriage yet!"

[davidinalameda]

25. I understand your frustration

but you know, like I said in this thread, thousands of gays and lesbians don't have what you have in the way of rights

celebrate what you have tonight and tomorrow, start working again for full equality!

[mondo joe]

11. One more thing: Kudos to Ed Murray who has been championing equality for gays for a long time in Oly

:-)

[hulklogan]

16. Yes, big kudos to Ed Murray

I worry about what will happen when he decides to retire. I can only hope that there is someone else to pick up the torch the way Ed did when Cal Anderson passed away.